Re: OT: For information only !

Joe wrote:

> Christophe Grandsire wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>  It solves just about every problem you care to
>>> mention with both "normal" and IR voting. Trouble is, it's likely to
>>> lead
>>> to the two-party duopoly being broken, and that means it will never so
>>> much as reach committee (or the equivalent stage) in most countries.
>>
>>
>>
>> In what way is that a bad thing? ;) Well, you may rethink your "most".
>> Most democratic countries I know have more than two main parties.
>> Anglo-Saxon countries (especially the US) are an exception rather than
>> the rule.
>>
>
> Actually, it's almost entirely the US.  Most countries have a 3+ party
> system.  The UK has the Tories, Labour, and the Lib Dems(plus Seperatist
> parties - the SNP and Plaid Cymru), Canada the Liberals, the Tories, and
> the New Democrats.  Australia the Liberals/Nationals, Labour, and the
> Australian Democrats(and some other, smaller parties).

Firstly, it's spelt Labor (or in full the Australian Labor Party), not
Labour, regardless of how you prefer to spell 'labor'. Two reasons:
Labor vs Labour wasn't standardised in Australia in the 1910s when the
spelling of the name was, and the party was formed under the influence
of the US Labor movements (or something like that). Secondly, anyone who
considers the Democrats to be anything other than a minor party deserves
to be laughed at, so HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Firstly, I don't think the
Democrats have ever had any representation in the House of
Representatives, which is what counts. And secondly, they're getting
smaller and smaller. Now, if you'd said the coallition (Libs/Nats),
Labor and the Greens, then I couldn't've criticised you. But I doubt the
Greens will do anything but hold the balance of power in the Senate any
time soon, and even if they held the balance of power in the Senate, all
that means is it'll be harder for Government bills to be passed...
(Note: In spite of the fact that we have a Westminster lower house, our
upper house is _very_ powerful, thanks in part to it being modelled
after the US Senate rather than House of Lords.)

Australian is mostly a two-party system really, though, with minor
parties who have more influence than their American equivalents. But
that's all they have: Influence, not Power. Though as I've said, the
Greens are growing and its entirely possible that they'll have some
amount of power one day... Though I imagine it'll just be as a part of a
coallition with Labor; I don't see them getting any Liberal seats...

>   The US is the
> only nation I know of that only has two parties represented in its
> Parliament(Yes, it's called Congress, but it's still a Parliament).

No... the Congress is a congress. There's two distinct systems: the
Parliamentary system, which has parliaments, as used by Britain and most
Commonwealth countries, and the Presedential system, which has
congresses as used by America and various other countries... I think the
difference is that the executive is kept separate from the legislature
in one and mixed in with the other, but it could be that I'm focussing
on the wrong distinction...

(Australia's HoR only had two parties represented in it until a recent
byelection. I have no idea what will happen come the election due some
time this year. [I wish we had fixed terms for federal elections. We've
only just now got them for Victorian elections and they're being phased
in for local elections.])

--
Tristan.

Replies